Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > >> > I've already tried this kernel and doesn't fix things for me. > > I'm now having (what I suspect are) the same suspend issues in both f13 and > f14. > > It's being tracked here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=628897 > > I'

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On 09/12/2010 05:00 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Actually, I suspect it's a result of this bug: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630490 > > until the fix for that gets pushed, in F14, if you use systemd and > 'disable' NetworkManager.service, NM will still get started up by bus > ac

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 23:55 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 16:23:12 -0500, > John Morris wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 00:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 16:23:12 -0500, > John Morris wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 00:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 23:18:00 -0500, > > > John Morris wrote: > > > > > > > > And of course Network-M

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 16:23:12 -0500, John Morris wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 00:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 23:18:00 -0500, > > John Morris wrote: > > > > > > And of course Network-Manager isn't optional anymore. Oh no, you can't > > > > You can still

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 04:23:12PM -0500, John Morris wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 00:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 23:18:00 -0500, > > John Morris wrote: > > > > > > And of course Network-Manager isn't optional anymore. Oh no, you can't > > > > You can still

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 00:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 23:18:00 -0500, > John Morris wrote: > > > > And of course Network-Manager isn't optional anymore. Oh no, you can't > > You can still run the network service. You use chkconfig to turn it on. > If you don't ne

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

> > So now I lost the only kernel package where everything worked. And of > > course Fedora doesn't have it anymore. You can pick the original > > package or the current update. Triple crap! If anyone has a pointer > > to kernel-2.6.31.12-174.222.x86_64.rpm I'd really appreciate it! > > Goog

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 23:18:00 -0500, John Morris wrote: > > And of course Network-Manager isn't optional anymore. Oh no, you can't You can still run the network service. You use chkconfig to turn it on. If you don't need wireless, turning off NetworkManager doesn't seem to be a problem, bu

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:18:00 -0500 John Morris wrote: > On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 23:05 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:23:01 -0500 > > John Morris wrote: > > > > > In my case I reported #573135 back in March and stopped taking > > > kernel updates. In another month or so I'll

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 23:18 -0500, John Morris wrote: > Sorry everyone, time to vent. > > Bah. This is why I just blocked kernel updates in the first place. > Tried updating now things are worse due to a bad combination of > Fedora policy multiplied by my own stupidity. I KNEW you were suppo

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. / Every OS sucks!

On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 23:05 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:23:01 -0500 > John Morris wrote: > > > In my case I reported #573135 back in March and stopped taking kernel > > updates. In another month or so I'll boot a live USB stick of F14 and > > see if the bug was fixed and j

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Jan Wildeboer wrote: > On 09/07/2010 02:45 PM, drago01 wrote: > > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=193772 > > > > This one addresses some suspend issues so it is worth testing. > > Bingo! Suspend/resume now works again. (Still have to do a se

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 14:36 +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote: > On 09/07/2010 02:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > It isn't. We can't possibly guarantee suspend/resume will work on all > > laptops in anything like a reasonable timeframe. if we set this as a > > release criterion, we would likely never

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 09/07/2010 02:45 PM, drago01 wrote: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=193772 > > This one addresses some suspend issues so it is worth testing. Bingo! Suspend/resume now works again. (Still have to do a service NetworkManager restart after resume some times, minor to me)

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Jan Wildeboer wrote: > On 09/07/2010 02:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> It isn't. We can't possibly guarantee suspend/resume will work on all >> laptops in anything like a reasonable timeframe. if we set this as a >> release criterion, we would likely never relea

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 09/07/2010 02:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > It isn't. We can't possibly guarantee suspend/resume will work on all > laptops in anything like a reasonable timeframe. if we set this as a > release criterion, we would likely never release. So we don't. Understood. It is however a royal PITA ;-)

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 13:25 -0400, Jan Wildeboer wrote: > In my case (F13, x86_64 on a Lenovo X200) the .34 kernel made suspend fail. > On laptops I think working suspend/resume should be blocker for release. It It isn't. We can't possibly guarantee suspend/resume will work on all laptops in any

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 23:10 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > If they don't have time to look at everything, then maybe they should stop > shipping kernels they haven't looked at! Really, people who needed 2.6.34 > could this is not on topic for this list. please participate in the existing disc

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > , there's no way in hell that anything > with ~10,000 unreviewed patches Err they aren't unreviewed as upstream did review them, it just does not make sense to review every single patch downstream too (besides obviously there is no man power

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:10:11 -0400 > Bill Davidsen wrote: > > > If they don't have time to look at everything, then maybe they should > stop > > shipping kernels they haven't looked at! Really, people who needed 2.6.34 > could > > pull it fro

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:10:11 -0400 Bill Davidsen wrote: > If they don't have time to look at everything, then maybe they should stop > shipping kernels they haven't looked at! Really, people who needed 2.6.34 > could > pull it from updates-untested and the rest of us could have working systems

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:23:01 -0500 John Morris wrote: > In my case I reported #573135 back in March and stopped taking kernel > updates. In another month or so I'll boot a live USB stick of F14 and > see if the bug was fixed and just didn't get closed. Then it is either > suck it up and run with

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:19:04 +1000 Rodd Clarkson wrote: > > Might I ask what great good has come from this? > Here's a list of bugs that were fixed by the 2.6.34 update and not by any specific fixes added by Fedora: 611123 - 2.6.33.5-124 on Dell E521 does not work with OCZ Vertex SSD drive 6078

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

>In my case (F13, x86_64 on a Lenovo X200) the .34 kernel made suspend fail. >On laptops I think working suspend/resume should be blocker for release. It >worked before, hence it is a regression. F13 was released with a .33 kernel, therefore the question of blocking the F13 release for this reas

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

ral products that have been praised by users. Other organizations also offer Linux products that addres these goals. Your question is reasonable: "Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs." but I think it has been answered correctly and well. In the lar

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

ese goals. Your question is reasonable: "Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs." but I think it has been answered correctly and well. In the larger sense "Does Fedora achieve a good balance between new function and bugs fixed relative to regression pro

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

- Original Message From: Bill Davidsen To: For testers of Fedora development releases Sent: Sat, September 4, 2010 10:10:11 PM Subject: Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs. Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, R

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > >> It is however, perfectly reasonable to expect that having tried a >> kernel at the request of a fedora developer on fedora-test-list and >> then having filed a bug against said kernel reporting problems, that >>

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 14:17 +0200, Dennis J. wrote: > What I would like to see is a distinction between regressions and other > bugs. There are a least two reasons why this might be worthwhile: > > 1. Regressions break functionality that has been known to work previously > and the users already

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:09 -0700, Scott Doty wrote: > Anyway, I could say more -- but I've probably already shown how bananas > my ideas can be. It's not bananas, it's just a lot of work that no-one's done yet - well, actually, it's implemented quite well in Launchpad, but most things don't use

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 09/02/2010 11:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > There's no guarantee the bug will get closed even if the problem is > fixed, unless someone else has the same hardware as you and is testing. > A fix may come down from upstream without being recognized specifically > as a fix for this particular

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 17:09 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Runge > wrote: > > > > Although I think, this is the wrong way, putting > exclude=kernel-* > in your /etc/yum.conf will exclude the kernel fro

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 16:24 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > Ah, and here I guess lies the problem. The email from the fedora > engineers (some weeks ago) quite clearly stated not to give this > kernel karma points so that it didn't get pushed until they were sure > it wouldn't cause issues, so I ha

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 09/02/2010 02:39 PM, drago01 wrote: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, cornel panceac wrote: >> >> >> 2010/9/2 drago01 >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. wrote: >>> 2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work" case you can use as a compari

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

2010/9/2 drago01 > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, cornel panceac wrote: > >> > > that's one of the many reasons testers' work should not just be > discarded. > > Where did I say that? > > > they have a lot of hardware and a lot of time the developers can not > > possibly have. also they are mor

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, cornel panceac wrote: > > > 2010/9/2 drago01 >> >> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. wrote: >> >> > 2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work" >> > case >> > you can use as a comparison. If bugs could be flagged as regression th

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

2010/9/2 drago01 > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. wrote: > > > 2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work" > case > > you can use as a comparison. If bugs could be flagged as regression then > > developers you potentially look at these first right after the

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. wrote: > 2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work" case > you can use as a comparison. If bugs could be flagged as regression then > developers you potentially look at these first right after the regressions > occurred and pro

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 09/02/2010 12:35 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > To actually see the extent and identifying problem(s) and regressions ( > you could notice reporting trends with components ) and deal with it > accordingly we need to gather and make public bugzilla stats for > components. > > Making those s

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 04:24:37PM +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > I'm really not happy with this entire process. I've also received an email > saying that my 99 votes have been removed because someone at fedora decided > to change the rules regarding my bug and voting and that my votes don't > coun

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 09/02/2010 09:56 AM, Dennis J. wrote: > I think the question is how regressions are prioritized. For me the issue > is that my Radeon card has been working perfectly on F11 but had a major > performance regression with F12 that makes the system too slow for regular > use. I filed a bug with lo

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > >> Anyhow, what a waste of time all around.  I spend a couple of painful >> hours booting and rebooting my system to try and isolate this bug and the >> developers couldn't take two minutes to mention that they needed to post the >> kernel and

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

2010/9/2 Dennis J. > On 09/02/2010 04:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > > > >> > >> It is however, perfectly reasonable to expect that having tried a > >> kernel at the request of a fedora developer on fedora-test-list and > >> then having

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 09/02/2010 04:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > >> >> It is however, perfectly reasonable to expect that having tried a >> kernel at the request of a fedora developer on fedora-test-list and >> then having filed a bug against said kernel re

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

Rodd Clarkson clarkson.id.au> writes: > Ah, and here I guess lies the problem.  The email from the fedora engineers (some weeks ago) quite clearly > stated not to give this kernel karma points so that it didn't get pushed until they were sure it wouldn't cause > issues, so I haven't been giving i

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: > > Although I think, this is the wrong way, putting > exclude=kernel-* > in your /etc/yum.conf will exclude the kernel from updating. > Thanks Matthias, I don't like excluding kernels either, but I don't need to be adding --exclude=kernel\*

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 02/09/10 08:29, Rodd Clarkson wrote: >> Anyhow, what a waste of time all around. I spend a couple of painful hours >> booting and rebooting my system to try and isolate this bug and the >> developers couldn't take two minutes to mention that they needed to post the >> kernel and that they would

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

> Anyhow, what a waste of time all around. I spend a couple of painful hours > booting and rebooting my system to try and isolate this bug and the > developers couldn't take two minutes to mention that they needed to post the > kernel and that they would address my bug some time soon. > Anyhow, e

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > > > My system suspends and resumes fine on f13 with the 2.6.33 kernels, so it > > isn't unreasonable to expect this functionality to continue on a stable > > release. > > On the ot

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 02/09/10 03:58, Adam Williamson wrote: > Because there are always suspend issues, kernel team doesn't consider > suspend problems a blocker for release. This is really sad; just a few Fedora releases suspended and resumed fine right of the box on my T43 Thinkpad, F 13 belonged to them. I really

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:00 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Why was kernel-2.6.34.x pushed to updates in f13 when three people had >> > reported suspend is

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > > To be frank, they don't have time to look at everything, and suspend is > a bit of a way down the list. They are aware of your bug - I know > because one of the kernel team asked m

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > > It is however, perfectly reasonable to expect that having tried a > kernel at the request of a fedora developer on fedora-test-list and > then having filed a bug against said kernel reporting problems, that > someone might actually have

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On 09/01/2010 09:12 PM, Rodd Clarkson wrote: On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:00 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > Hi all,

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:00 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Why was kernel-2.6.34.x pushed to updates in f13 when three people had > > reported suspend issues with the kernel and no attempt was made to > > address these issu

Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:00 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > Hi all, > > Why was kernel-2.6.34.x pushed to updates in f13 when three people had > reported suspend issues with the kernel and no attempt was made to > address these issues. > > see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615560 >

Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

Hi all, Why was kernel-2.6.34.x pushed to updates in f13 when three people had reported suspend issues with the kernel and no attempt was made to address these issues. see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615560 I Rodd -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscrib